Start here

We’re often asked to provide a one stop link for resources that people can use to get up to speed on the issue of climate change, and so here is a selection. Unlike our other postings, we’ll amend this as we discover or are pointed to new resources. Different people have different needs and so we will group resources according to the level people start at.

293 Responses to “Start here”

Next, in my view, is what society chooses to do about the risks created by climate change. To help inform that discussion the American Meteorological Society initiated the ClimatePolicy.org project (http://www.ClimatePolicy.org).

I don’t see NOAA or NOAA’s NWS mentioned. Does anyone feel they have enough courage, moral obligation and know how to stand up to two generals and a Vice Admiral? – to see that they are held accountable for their wrong doing on global warming?

At first glance it looks 100% biased/advocacy. I would have preferred all but one reference being that way to make it fair (though you certainly should not make it balanced.) But it looks pretty good and helpful; I’m looking forward to it. Good work (as usual).

btw, while we all can sympathize with “pat n” (#3), I don’t think lynching belongs.

One thing I’ve been looking for but haven’t found yet is a recommended list of peer-reviewed papers – i.e. for someone who isn’t afraid of the science, which papers would you recommend reading to get an overall picture of where the research is at?

What I’ve been looking for is a site that actively debunks Steve McIntyre’s ClimateAudit site. I’ve noticed that climate scientists rarely link to him. On his site, he appears to make some very serious allegations about the integrity of the IPCC process, and is still engaged in fighting the hockey stick (and now, spaghetti) wars.

Hi, I don’t mean to turn this into yet another sceptic thread, but I’ve read in another site that there apparently are doubts about current models assuming that climate sensitivity is constant. (Do they indeed assume this?)

Also, the individual asserts that control systems theory has not been properly addressed in the current models, and that some climate scientists who have properly accounted for this have doubts about the current models.

I’m not a climate scientist, just an interested layperson, and I thought I’d seen all the sceptic arguments, but this is a new one for me. Would appreciate any reply. Thanks!

Isn’t environmentalism the right thing to do regardless? On top of such a comprehensive listing of facts, I think we also need to broaden out the apeal.
Basically, you really don’t even need to believe in global warming to want to live more efficiently, right? I mean, it’s the right thing to do for many other critical reasons. Apart from improving our health:

Living more efficiently SAVES MONEY. Yeah, like you really need to twist my arm for that… To think how companies can save millions in just the efficient design of their office buildings. Economy cars can also save you like $16,000 in gas over the life of the car when figured at just $2.00 per gallon. Isn’t that worth it right there?

It improves our national security. Oil could spike to $5.00 a gallon tomorrow if something happened in the Middle East or a hurricane hit Huston. If that happened, the economy and our security would be greatly weakened, Duh!

Burning less fuel creates less smog, less air pollution, and less soil contamination. Go figure…

Living more efficiently ultimately lowers our impact on wildlife and forest areas in the form of less acid rain, fewer catastrophic oil spills, and less strip mining.

Finally, if we can become more energy self-sufficient on a very local level we become that much less vulnerable to region-wide disasters like Hurricanes or mass blackouts. In this regard, renewable energy, isn’t just good for the environment. It’s also the key to keeping the power on when everybody else is sitting in the dark.

Overall, isn’t wastefulness and carelessness “morally” wrong? We have to expand our thinking to find solutions that address the broadest possible array of problems. Being able to work productively at home or in our own communities would, to me, be the most ‘cut-to-the-chase solution’ of them all as it would eliminate the need for a daily commute in the first place while giving us five more hours of free time during the week! It’s exactly what LA is trying to do to curb the extraordinary amount of traffic they have: create consolidated communities where people live, work, and have great recreational facilities nearby! Got to think that’s smart at some level, right?

These links for “complete beginners” and the site for the IPCC reports are great, as are the Realclimate Index. Although I was aware of a couple of the websites I wasn’t aware of all of them and will post them to my on-line class on ecology. A lot of students will be clicking on those links in the next few months.

A couple months ago I was looking for a really simple graph showing the ice core CO2 measurements with the modern day rise superimposed on it to show to a contrarian. An easy resource for any of the simple but powerful graphs that the science has produced (some of which simply don’t appear within the IPCC reports in a way that is presentable to the public) could be useful.

Hey I was wondering what anyone thought of this article: http://thenewsroom.com/details/329988/Business?c_id=adm It’s kind of interesting and it makes you think about global warming from an economic standpoint. Do you think anyone in the United States government might be into this type of thing? How does stuff like this affect the energy crisis?

One thing which is confusing in all the commentary is the shifting baseline for temperature increases. The AR4 Summaries for Policy Makers from Working Groups 1, 2, and 3 sometimes use 1960-1990, sometimes 1980-99, and sometimes “pre-industrial”. Is there a place where one can see what the levels for these baselines are, so that translation is possible?

Since everyone stumbles on a *wealth* of websites, any commentary on other more dubiuous websites would also be a good starter. Just to avoid confusion. Perhaps under a header like like “Wat not to visit”? Make sure you provide some hints as to why these sites are not that good.

I recall vividly the comments the bloggers make in their inline responses when someone copies information from these dubious sites.

Thanks for all the good science blogs and comments. This is a great site! I am amazed you guys find time to maintain this site. Did you invent a parallel universe? :-)

Great infomative site! Just heard of the huge chunk of the artic that recently broke off..bloody scary!! Hey guys..australia has invented new solar cell technology called ‘sliver’ cells – 15x more efficient than the current ones and flexible too. In production within 18 months -2 years. What this means is that the avearage family house can be producing 30Kw+ at the same price as a normal 2Kw solar system. and it uses 99% less silicon than conventional ones as well! There are ways to reverse global warming..all it takes is people to be aware of their options and to apply the blowtorch to their respective governments. Just take a minute to think of all the possibilities that this new technology promises. Flexible–so the bonnet and hood of your car can be made of sliver cells and that will supply more than enough power to it’s electric motor for even the most blaze speed freak to raise a sweat over. It’s time to stop talking about what we are going to do and get in there and damn well DO-IT!!!! I know I am!! Hope this has been an inspiration.

Compend’s a good move, I think. Within the last few days I’ve read in news services of Dr. Mike Raupach ‘s and Dr. Pep Canadell’s report for the Aussie CSIRO Global Carbon Project that emissions have intensified and carbon-loading of the atmosphere has increased near or beyond IPCC worst-case scenarios. No Hank Roberts-style adept at net linkages, I google Steve Rintoul and other ocean-sniffers from time to time. Thank you for permitting me to gum crumbs from the high table.

One issue that has not been adequately addressed yet is the possible need to start planning and designing and building model polar cities and towns now, in the event that they are needed in the distant future, when building materials and transport fuel will be scarce. Anybody thinking about this yet?

Great post – thanks! One thing you could add to it and maintain over time would be a list of climate focused blogs. Many of us maintain links to other blogs with a climate change focus and this helps create community and spread awareness. Since you’ve got a good following and are well respected, maintaining a clearing house list of such blogs in this this post would be a great community service.

Here’s a list of those I’m currently following via RSS. Many of these I list in my blog’s blogroll and some of them I am cross-linked with (and would be pleased to be cross-linked with all of them):

Rod B., what would you suggest to make the suggestions “fair and balanced”? I personally don’t know of any “skeptical” websites that deal in actual science. I mean, would you suggest that a biology department offer a course on creationism just to be “fair and balanced”?
I’m reminded of a scene from the play “Greater Tuna”, a very funny play that revolves around the only radio station in the town of Tuna, Texas. In one scene, the Station Manager is interviewing a “concerned citizen” who is advocating the removal of several books from the Library. One book that is subject to his wrath is “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. When asked why, he replies incredulously, “Why, it only presents one side of the slavery issue.” There are some issues that only have one side, and the science of climate change is such an issue.
There is still room for legitimate debate about how bad things are going to get, although I think the IPCC has mostly been quite conservative in their analysis. There’s lots of room for debate about how we handle the issue. I have yet to hear anyone present a coherent case for the so-called skeptic’s point of view on the science. Have you?

Lawrence, that is bloody amazing. I found a good blurb on it here. 5 to 7 years to recoup the cost of your solar panel instead of 20 as is the case with current solar voltaic products on offer! And they’ll be mass-produced and flooding the market within a couple years.

That makes at least five new Australian kick-ass zero CO2 energy technologies that I know of that are all on the cusp of blitzing the energy market. Go Aussie!

It would be good to have section in the new resources page that is devoted to solutions.

Very unlikely. I recently priced 175 watt Solarworld panels that have a module efficiency of 24%. Being 15 times more efficient is just impossible …

One thing I’d like to see for the “Okay, so maybe you are right, but we’ll die without our fossil fuels!” crowd is links to alternate energy and energy savings. I know I’ve got to be the official ‘alternate energy’ poster child these days, but there are people who might “do something” if they thought they could have their cake and eat it too.

Great list of resources, thanks. Here’s another one, which I guess could go under “Informed, but in need of more detail” – here at http://environmentalresearchweb.org we’re providing free updates on the latest research in climate change and other environmental change topics as well as on potential solutions such as renewable energy.

Someone mentioned the EdGCM model you can download and run. Perhaps better for beginners is Ben Matthews’ Java climate module, which is interactive and lets you play around with various parameters in realtime.

Also mentioned previously on this site is Kerry Emanuel’s Phaeton’s Reins, which is one of the best introductory essays on climate change I’ve read.

#24 is spot on…if we’re going to change hearts and minds (and harvest the resulting political will) of those currently interested but uninformed, let’s converse in a common language devoid of untranslated alphabetitus.

#6 seems peculiar: “One thing I’ve been looking for but haven’t found yet is a recommended list of peer-reviewed papers – i.e. for someone who isn’t afraid of the science, which papers would you recommend reading to get an overall picture of where the research is at?”

This is hard to understand. The IPCC reports fulfill exactly this purpose. They review the literature and provide references to it. You may follow up on just about any relevant current scientific issue from there.

Links to IPCC reports are provided in the current RealClimate article.

Regarding #5, “btw, while we all can sympathize with “pat n” (#3),
I don’t think lynching belongs.”

How can confronting malfeasance in appointed office be construed
as a “lynching?”
NOAA and NWS have set back awareness of AGHG climate
change for decades. These retiring administrators should
be brought before Congress to explain to the American People
why and how they have compromised the welfare of the nation,
putting politics and job security before informing the population
of impending catastrophes due to climate change.

Pat was fired from the NWS for his insistence that the agency
broach global warming as an issue. The wrong person was fired.
Pat is the whistle blower. There should be an explanation. In the
end I suspect there will be – and Pat will be recognized as a hero
of the movement.

Well all this is, fine and dandy, preaching to the choir material. But you would be surprised just how effective the contrarian (so-called skeptic) rhetoric is – as applied to real world events (actual debates by scientists, actual debates in person or on the web, with, or between laypeople). I think the members/creators of this website can attest to that.

Also, many people I know, that are reasonable and intelligent, but not necessarily interested in the details of Global Warming were easily swayed by the Swindle Show (“The Great Global Warming Swindle”). Their comments were along the lines of: “very powerful” or “more controversial than I thought” or even “opened my eyes.” All that happened was a few of the usual suspects (the same handful of skeptics) were paraded about, more or less, they made they same tired old (or debunked) arguments, displayed a graph or few, and correlated environmental-ism, as an -ism, that is actual “junk science” that can hurt the impoverished world (like Africa, etc).

I am a little confused and disheartened by the fact that – a few hands can be waved about, a few spurious arguments can be made, and one only needs say “it’s actually too complex a system and the debate over what is driving the Climate is still wide open to debate, at this time.” Why is the rhetoric of claiming it is more, or too, complex, and it is still wide open to debate – so effective?

Ray (28): Actually I said “fair” but explicitly said I was not looking for “balance”. I think it would be nice to have, say, one reference to the skeptical side (probably along with the links giving the opposite arguments), but balancing the two sides on RC would be silly.

Actually, I do think an aspect of creationism (something along “intelligent design”, except the fundamentalists have co-opted that phrase — now I don’t know what to call it) should be taught, or at least mentioned — but probably in Physics, not Biology. Just like I think Fred Hoyle’s et al version of the “start” of the Universe ought to be mentioned along side the Big Bang theory. Just like I think meterology and climatics (neat new word?!) courses out to at least describe the skeptic side.

Tim, (40), call it what you may, but “confronting malfeasance ” is a lynching, albeit with a Committee instead of a rope. Your description of the situation with pat n, NOAA and NWS could be right on, and I do sympathize. I simply meant that the lynching (or confronting malfeasance, if you like) ought to be done with your Congressman or some such; it’s not RC’s job.

A beginner’s page shouldn’t use anacronyms like IPCC, AR4 and TAR without saying what they mean like International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Those acronyms are not under the section ‘For complete beginners’, they are used in the section ‘Those with some knowledge’, which you would presume would be covered by any meaningful introduction to the topic (thats up to date).

Good points Tim. Nearly everyone in here has known for years that climate change is happening in the Upper Midwest. NOAA NWS supervisors told the public, for many years, that global warming wasn’t happening or was not a problem. They were ordered to tell national media during the summer flood of 1993 not to bring up global warming while doing national interviews. Would we be better off if NWS did make global warming an issue in 1993 and afterwards? I think so.